RealGM

Does anyone else think that Jamal Crawford should start over Bibby, I think they should get rid of Bibby all together and just run Jamal there, he's a great passer and now with the experience of being a 6th man, I think he'd take less shots and his assists would go up, also, he can create his own shot and disrupt oppositions defences.

I just think he would work better at the point than the ageing Bibby, anyone else agree?

No. Crawford still plays more minutes than Bibby and you don't mind having a high usage player on the court when he's playing with guys like Mo Evans and Joe Smith.

No. Jamal Crawford has never done well when he's forced to make good decisions. He's more likely to start chucking 3 PT'ers early in the clock than making the 1st pass to start the ball movement. I see no reason to move him from the 1st role where he's really excelled in his 10 year career.

The funniest part of this post is that when I read the title I was thinking about Jordan Crawford being bumped over Bibby as the main backup to Teague. Which I'd be happy about - as long as Jordan (and Teague) wins the minutes. But Jamal as starting PG? No thank you.

I don't know why anyone makes it seem like Jordan Crawford can run the point for extended periods of time. His handle is suspect. That alone should rule him out from running the point.

Wouldn't mind seeing either of the Crawford's run it, even for parts.

I think Teague should start.

rordog wrote:Wouldn't mind seeing either of the Crawford's run it, even for parts.

If it for parts, it already happened.
There were some minutes with Crawford as PG last year.

But except in case the opponent PG is really killing us because of Bibby, and actually it was not 100% because of Bibby who defended not less than Nash always did, but 50% due to Woodson asking for always switching instead of using a good team defense, in any other case we were better with Bibby on the court than with him on the bench.
While it was not so much difference with Crawford. And no way he's a leader like Bibby. Bibby is the one who brought leadership in this team, and that made the bigger impact.
Now is getting old, so it creates a problem, but it can be limit with a good system, and even better if he can get back to shape (he had clearly at least 15 pounds more than the previous season).

He took way more shots than our previous 6th man (Murray), so if you think that his 6th man experienced would help him being passing first, you have to be optimist.
I don't think he's really thinking about shooting first, but in any case, it will start with him making cross-over or over moves and attacking the rim, and if the other are moving right, he can make a pass like it happen with Josh or Al at times, but you can't build on thing like that. It works two or three times in a row, then the opponent adjust.
On defense, he's not making more impact than Bibby, just he doesn't look old like Bibby did in some games, but he looks easily more lost.

Now, I am not the biggest support to Crawford because I am not happy with his impact for 10M comparing it to what Murray did (same thing at a lower level) for 2M.
I would use him for a big trade, or trade him for Murray + a player at 8M for sure if this 8M player is a C who can play 25 to 30min.
But this could be wrong now as we get a new offense with the new coach.

Mike Bibby is finished nothing more then a role player now funny how quick he declined

Jameslm18 wrote:Mike Bibby is finished nothing more then a role player now funny how quick he declined

Even more funny than even with that while Crawford got his award, we were still way better with Bibby On court than Off court, than with Crawford On or Off.

It's sad to see Crawford being not finished, but not able to bring more impact than one who's finished, even while being paid 5M more.

So you're saying Bibby had a bigger impact than Crawford solely based on on/off court numbers despite the fact that Bibby rarely played with Teague/Mo/Joe Smith/Zaza etc?

rordog wrote:Does anyone else think that Jamal Crawford should start over Bibby, I think they should get rid of Bibby all together and just run Jamal there, he's a great passer and now with the experience of being a 6th man, I think he'd take less shots and his assists would go up, also, he can create his own shot and disrupt oppositions defences.

I just think he would work better at the point than the ageing Bibby, anyone else agree?

i could care less who starts, i care about who finishes. Joe and Jamal end up closing games, so the post is mute.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:So you're saying Bibby had a bigger impact than Crawford solely based on on/off court numbers despite the fact that Bibby rarely played with Teague/Mo/Joe Smith/Zaza etc?

No.
I know it, but I also know that Crawford played his main part with guys being starters.
I also found that ATL, when not having both Bibby and Joe on the court, was better performing with Bibby On and Joe Off, than with Joe On and Bibby Off.
It means that the 4 others players played better with Bibby than with Joe, which nobody would have gamble on it while asking to trade Bibby before seeing the numbers.

It's just to say that Crawford game, and the willing of Woodson to let him play and take lots of shots is a part of Bibby decreasing stats.
But his impact on the team performance was not decreasing, except some games were it was clearly a problem, being expanded by the switching defense of Woodson.

It simply doesn't makes any sense to continue to sing that Crawford was all good because of his individual stats and his award, and says that Bibby doesn't bring anything.
That's what happen a lot, and I find it wrong, based on what I saw in games, and on what team stats tell, which seems to match what I saw.

I know we are not agreeing on that, but I still continue to think that the team would have been nearly on the same level with Murray than Crawford, and that I wold have preferred keeping Murray and trade for a C like Haywood instead of Crawford. It would not have cost more.
Murray was taking less shots, and it was in benefits of other like Bibby or Marvin, who were not included enough in the offense this season.
We got no injury and only +6W

We are on opposite view, so it will be hard to agree on some points.
But for sure, don't think that I made any conclusion without looking at the fact that Crawford was playing more with bench guys than Bibby

Crawford brought some things we needed, but it did not make the impact I could hope (I hoped not more than that to be exact).
With Woodson system, it was all said that he would shine, but it never took the team to a new level like some seems to think. The playoffs was here to come back on earth.

Harry10 wrote:i could care less who starts, i care about who finishes. Joe and Jamal end up closing games, so the post is mute.

I don't care about who starts or who finishes, but who is on the floor when we are beating the opposite team, still looking at against who they are playing.
Looking solely at who is on the floor in 4th quarter doesn't says all, even if you win, if your W is build on a +15pts 3rd quarter, and a -12pts 4th quarter.
And ATL was one of the best team in the league for loosing their 4th quarter last year, even when winning the game